Birth Control vs Abortion

Post by **_Sethbag** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:34 pm

I agree with GoodK. The sky isn't falling, but this regulation certainly turns things in a direction I don't think it should be going. And there's really no purpose at all, whatsoever, served by defining contraception as abortion, other than raising the political stakes. It's not what the Dept. of HHS should be about.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:03 am

Again, religious idiots show up to try and change laws so that their beliefs can be used to govern the personal choices of others.

This is actually pretty scary, if you think about it.

That's pretty lame. What if someone's personal choice involved human sacrifice as part of their religion?

Post by **_Roger Morrison** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:47 am

This post doesn't pertain to the news article sited in the OP, but it is relative to the general topic of Abortion. Several years ago a Canadian MD opened an Abortion Clinic in Montreal, and subsequently served time in prison for doing so. After his release he continued his crusade and was instrumental in legalizing abortion in Canada.

Just recently he was awarded the "Order Of Canada" in recognition of his contribution to society. Following that announcement there were many discenting voices raised, not unexpectedly. Now those voices have joined forces as evidened by two EMs received on the same day. One from a RC, the other from an Evangelical. Both provided the same URL that all I had to do to register my disdain was to 'click' "NO", to be counted. No place to 'click' "Yes".

My point being: Anti-abortionists, under the misleading banner of "Pro-Life", will be a long time conceeding the option of Legal Abotion is a viable alternative to ending an unwanted--for whatever reason--pregnancy. Coat-hangers are not viable in today's world.

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:15 pm

bcspace wrote:
Again, religious idiots show up to try and change laws so that their beliefs can be used to govern the personal choices of others.

This is actually pretty scary, if you think about it.

That's pretty lame. What if someone's personal choice involved human sacrifice as part of their religion?

Lame. The death penalty is "human sacrifice." I hope you don't support it. That would be ironic.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:12 pm

GoodK wrote:It will make birth control harder to get.

How, exactly, will it make birth control harder to get?

Post by **_Angus McAwesome** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:38 pm

liz3564 wrote:
GoodK wrote:It will make birth control harder to get.

How, exactly, will it make birth control harder to get?

Because if this bill is enacted into law, health care providers and pharmacies will be able to refuse to offer birth control based on their religious beliefs. Let's say you live in Podunk, Backwater County, Alabama pop. 1382 and your local pharmacist believes that birth control is an evil plot by those dirty Atheists to make the Baby Jesus cry and then decides to stop carrying things like condoms, the pill, etc. The next closet pharmacy is in the next county over and may or may not be run by a pharmacist with the same beliefs. The nearest city large enough to rate one or more national chain pharmacies that will stock birth control is at least an hours drive away.

Now the people of Podunk have either two choices:

1. Drive a two hour or more round trip to get to the big city pharmacy that sells all legally available birth control methods, using up a lot of time and gas (and these days gas is damned expensive and country folk aren't known for driving the most fuel efficient cars).

2. Do with out birth control and hope your partner remembers to pull out or resign yourself to never having sex unless you're trying for a pregnancy.

Whole damned thing is another attempt by the religious right to legislate their idea of morality into the private lives of everyone around them.

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:49 pm

Angus McAwesome wrote:
Because if this bill is enacted into law, health care providers and pharmacies will be able to refuse to offer birth control based on their religious beliefs.

Well, sort of. There are already pharmacists that are doing this, without this proposal.

Liz, the reason why I think it will make it harder is because government money can't fund abortion. If forms of contraceptives are going to be considered "abortion" now, I imagine that places that distribute birth control will no longer receive government money, causing prices to go up or birth control to be taken off the shelves.

Post by **_Angus McAwesome** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:31 pm

GoodK wrote:Well, sort of. There are already pharmacists that are doing this, without this proposal.

Thing is, currently if a health care provider wants to stop performing a specific procedure (i.e. deny care) because of their religious beliefs they can't receive federal funding. With this proposal they can receive those funds, and even worse some of the wording in this proposal seems to suggest that anyone practicing religiously objectionable practices would be denied funds even though the procedures are legal.

And I love how they word everything up to look like they're trying to protect freedom of religion, when in fact all they're doing is trying to make an enforcement of religion. What the hell is it with Bush Administration Flunkies and undermining the Bill of Rights? it's like these clowns are trying to do as much damage as humanly possible before Dubya leaves office.

Post by **_Droopy** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:33 pm

While birth control isn't abortion per se, the overwhelming majority of all abortions performed since Roe have been what is normally termed convenience abortions; that is, abortion used as a form of birth control.

Post by **_gramps** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:44 pm

Droopy wrote:While birth control isn't abortion per se, the overwhelming majority of all abortions performed since Roe have been what is normally termed convenience abortions; that is, abortion used as a form of birth control.

I find that fascinating. Could you lead us to a source for that, Droopy? I'm quite sure that is the case in Japan (convenience abortions, I mean), for example, but in the states?